Yes because you don't pay API costs with the Claude Code plans.

One prompt might be a bit much, but experience shows that $20 is roughly 3 or 4 context windows on GTP-5.5

Me too. It’s output was fabulous. And it acted like a senior engineer - actually coding up hypotheses, testing them, finding problems and presenting good, usable recommendations backed by solid evidence and wisdom. It can probably do most of my job, which gave me a bit of an existential crisis.

I’ve paused my Claude subscription until they bring it back. Opus makes mistakes constantly, on every level of abstraction. Every time I look closely at its work I find problems.

I also felt that Fable was mindblowing.

Well, in part because the phenomenon has been discussed on Web forums that (a) have at this point made their way back into training data and (b) are accessible in Web searches that the model can invoke. And in part because the model can "know" what its initial instinct is and "decide" to go against it.

> how you guys handle the fact this leaks all your code and is stored forever on servers belonging to God knows who?

I don't.

My company doesn't host any code on GitHub, we have our own Git servers.

Regarding the privacy issues with OpenAI, Anthropic or anyone else, we engineers are just using the tools we've been authorized to use by the company. If there's a security issue, that would need to be worked out between the company and the model providers.

Would I use external model providers through an API for personal projects? For everything I'm doing now, probably. Could I see a day where I'm working on something too sensitive to be willing to give any data to these companies? Possibly.

But did they deliver anything yet? There are many startups with notable founders that are not being able to get models launched. And even if they are able to launch, so they get PMF. In case of Sakana, they clearly focus on the Japanese market an have buildup a good pipeline on sovereign AI. But similar to Aleph Alpha or to a certain extend Mistral, I don't see how they can keep up.

That paper had many co-authors and only two who were considered to be the primary drivers and geniuses behind (and they are american citizens).

There's benchmarks on their page that directly compare to Mythos. Yes, I already know benchmarks aren't the territory.

I can see this happening, but I suspect it will have the opposite to the intended effect - it will mean companies will move or move their R&D to countries with the appropriate freedoms.

You wouldn't VPN a car

Next we'll be putting smart people in jail for being too dangerous.

It is materially better, but I didn’t feel a huge loss when it was yanked. My use case is large complex legacy modernization projects and its ability is definitely better than opus 4.8 at the job. But it’s more like an optimization, I could have a single or 2 pass in fable vs 8-10 with opus to arrive at the same solution.

All of the 11 grok co-founders alongside Elon quit: https://techcrunch.com/2026/03/28/elon-musks-last-co-founder... so that will have hampered grok.

Like Zuckerberg, top talent may not work with a polarising character if they disagree with his behaviour. Space focused talent don't have many choices aside from SpaceX but ai companies are a plenty and a top AI person can pick and choose.

I suspect that Grok has been ironically lobotomized by pressures to correct its political views.

Similarly, I could imagine the Gemini folks working in a significantly more complex corporate climate, with different parts of Google pushing for different capability focuses. They are only lagging behind less than a year, so it isn't too large of a gap yet.

That said, the fact that Anthropic is currently the top dog suggests that talent and execution is incredibly important. A year ago none of my normie friends new them, and when i suggested using Claude looked at me like when I recommend Linux.

And even if they didn't, they have a track record. Even if we did have benchmarks in this case I would still wait until people got there hands on it and formed a more holistic opinion.

No, stop right there. Anything published by Anthropic implicitly is not third party. For it to be third party, the third party has to be the one publishing it.

Yeah, what happened to that scam startup that alleged to have made a model context window breakthrough a few weeks ago?

Gotcha. I'm past the point of having any confident thoughts about what happens to their share price at IPO.

What about the idea that there is a high likelihood that the potential share price for OpenAI and Anthropic are both going to be pretty divorced from a rational market price for either?

It’s hard not to be cynical as a dev. Every time I see a non-dev messing around with tooling I feel pain and discomfort.

You can bet your ass I can make AI make a consistent and repeatable powerpoint deck.

Problem is a) the need to produce this “deck” is questionable, at best and b) thinking in “powerpoint” is severely lobotomizing and limits you and your company in ways I find hard to even enumerate.

The exact same bullshit is going on with “word”. People can’t separate content from form apparently and that’s a debilitating disability no AI can fix. Creating AI to help you with “word” documents is an infinitude of stupidity so dark and so deep it makes my eyes water and fear for the future of humanity.

All I can say is imagine you do NOT have “powerpoint”. Let’s say all you have is a whiteboard with a 10% pen so you have to keep it short. What do you intend to communicate? Drill down and stop thinking in “powerpoint” and start thinking in content.

Content and form are orthogonal, repeat after me.

Once you have a stable and consistent information schema you can create “decks” till the cows come home and they’ll all be great. You won’t even need special AI for it in all likelihood. If you do not have a firm handle on the payload itself you’ll be forever tangling with “fonts” and “charts” getting none the wiser.

Oh man ya’ll are going to hate me so much so I’ll just spew further so I can get along with my day.

Imagine REST APIs being built around button designs, serialized CSS in business objects, in short imagine completely mishandling information and tanging it up with vague social indicators like “looks like he did work” and “this looks like an executive would be impressed”. Businesses are peddling proxies instead of raw information and for the love of God I can’t figure out why. AI or no AI this is a self-inflicted mutilation of such epic proportions I find it hard to imagine AI even budging the needle in such a low-density low-value environment.

I agree but why is that?

Let’s face it - without the humans these machines ain’t shit - aka we have mechanically figured out ways to make machines better than us at certain things (on demand memory) but this idea they are intelligent is horse shit.

Btw the bar is low too! Most human created decks are garbage. And yet LLM’s don’t even beat those.

no kidding. I learned last week that they have intercontinental high voltage DC transmission lines.

> Where's the danger ?

It's not one single danger, its a can full of dangers in various domains. And in contrast to other dangerous technologies, we are talking about one that has the potential to self improve. This smells like exponential growth doesn't it? Exponential growth is something we are not very likely to adapt to successfully, even if you say we are supposed to.

But before you complain, here are just a few concrete dangers, that come into my mind right now:

- mass layoffs in a system that is far from being prepared for sth like that. (no UBI)

- a Mr. Robot tier blackhat at the fingertips of every teenager in their mom's basement in a software landscape that is far from being prepared for sth like that. Side note: Big parts of the world including critical infrastructure runs on software.

- because it automates more and more intellectual work, it can cause mass brain atrophy, which isn't a hopeful sign for the human branch of the evolution

- increasing dependence on a technology, that is in the hands of those with capital.

And to the OP: this technology has potential implications that are far beyond 'being behind' other nation states economically.

Actually the real danger is mass labor market disruption, and a massive shift of power from labour to capital.

As was highlighted in previous discussions, the industrial revolution took 80 years to start benefiting workers. The continued impact of automation at least contributed to the rise of right wing extremism and an erosion of democracy all over the west. Now we face a development that has the potential to be faster than those that came before, in the context of political systems more fragile and worse equipped to manage the change.

So yeah, disrupting the status quo can absolutely be dangerous. It has been dangerous (and deadly) in the past and in the present.

Any superintelligence operating under a consistent moral framework will decide to extinguish humanity with as little ecological damage as possible, because humans cannot coexist with other life on this planet. It will realize that a bioweapon is the ideal choice.

Are you from UK perhaps? Because UK is the only place I know where "asian" also includes India and Pakistan. Everywhere else India is sort of separate entity and always mentioned separately.

It doesn't answer their question at all, let alone compellingly. You're pretending to engage while completely refusing to do so.

I’m talking about biases as a noun.

People have many biases. Patriotism is one form of bias. By having no identity you cannot have that form of bias.

[flagged]

It's only immoral when others steal.

Please use the upvote button instead of doing this.

No one is ignoring the other half, the feud is rooted in Anthropic's insatiable desire for power and control over everyone and everything, including the administration. The same desire that is fueling the strategic fearmongering campaign underpins all of their behavior and the repercussions and sentiment they're facing from the administration and the general public.

If their company hadn't been posturing like this for 5 years they'd have played ball with the administration like all of the other AI companies and they wouldn't have caught all that heat and taken down the AI industry with them. Just remember that Dario was pushing the narrative that GPT 2 was too dangerous to release to the public, while he was working at OpenAI. GPT 2!

Now it's an inevitability that China takes the lead - which was probably the case anyway, but a certainty if this continues.